Derek 2.0 Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 I don't know if that's true anymore. I know it was until the retirement of the 4 larger vessels, but I thought they had reactivated them. I'm sure some could be, but most of those crews have been used to address other manpower requirements in the fleet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 I would think that getting rid of most, if not all of the ships, would be the goal, or perhaps replacing them with a similar amount of smaller ships such as the new midshore patrol vessels would be the way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 I would think that getting rid of most, if not all of the ships, would be the goal, or perhaps replacing them with a similar amount of smaller ships such as the new midshore patrol vessels would be the way to go. At some point they will be replaced, but for what will be expected of them once the AOPS enter full service, they will be more than sufficient for another decade+…….And I'm sure some will continue on like our old sweepers and auxillaries did until replaced by the Kingstons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 An interesting American perspective on the shared responsibility of Arctic defense of North America: In fact, it’s the Coast Guard, not the Defense Department, that’s taken the lead on Arctic cooperation with the Canadian Navy, as well as the Canadian Coast Guard. For example, the American Coasties regularly send a cutter to participate in Canada’s annual “Operation Nanook” exercise “even when the Navy has had to back out” to cover commitments elsewhere, Papp said. For the future, the commandant expects to see close cooperation with the Canadians in the Arctic on the model already proven on the Great Lakes, where the two countries share icebreakers and helicopters. But the Canadians themselves are stretched thin over their own vast Arctic territories, so they’ve concentrated their resources on the eastern (Atlantic) side, leaving the western (Pacific) side largely to the US Coast Guard — which, of course, is the side on which we have a little thing called Alaska, which stretches across almost to Russia. And this projected model will also mimic the current North Warning System (which I had the "pleasure" experiencing for several months last year), with the Americans contributing assets in the Western/Alaskan region and us in the Central (Kitikmeot) and Eastern regions, bookended by a lesser extent with the Danes in Greenland…….it works with Air Defense, I’m sure it will work with maritime security. Also of note and related to this thread: One of Papp’s proudest achievements as commandant has been to get the nation’s only heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, out of mothballs and back into service: It’ll be heading north soon to start training the crew. But the Star, built in 1976, won’t last forever, and the nation’s only other icebreaker is the much smaller Healy, so Papp has won administration approval to explore developing a new heavy-duty icebreaker. (Once again, he’s working with the Canadians, who “are probably about a year or two ahead of us” in looking at heavy icebreaker designs). While Papp doesn’t think Arctic-capable ships built by oil companies have enough icebreaking power, he does see some Scandinavian designs that might be good starting points for the US to modify. So one could safely assume, in a decade ahead, the maritime security of North America will monitored by modern US and Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers, combined with modern Royal Canadian Navy ice-capable Arctic Patrol Vessels…….An area that our Superpower allies recognize we currently have a slight edge on in terms of technology and procurement. And of course, and I fully admit my initial skepticism with it, this Arctic strategy was brought about by the current Conservative Government..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 A further update on the naval shipbuilding program: It appears the promise of a generation of good-paying jobs being created at the Halifax Shipyard is about to come true. On Friday, a couple of high-powered federal ministers came to Halifax to confirm that Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will be the prime contractor building the Canadian Surface Combatant project. It seems a logical decision since Irving had already been selected, in late 2011, to build a new fleet of warships for the Royal Canadian Navy, but apparently the process was more complicated. Not the least bit surprised, well also being a cagey political move in several ways…….First the selection of the various subcontractors will be out of Government’s hands and placed in the control of Irving. This of course prevents the all too common pork “industrial off-sets” going to companies in key political ridings, instead allowing Irving the ability to select companies best suited, preventing another Frankenstein-like-procurement program. Second it absolves the current/future Government from faux partisan attack by both the Opposition and the media……..Once the sub-contractors are selected and steel starts being bashed any questions over delays or overruns can be directed to Irving…….. As I said here: Though the final designs for both the AOPS and surface combatants have yet to be released publically, one can assume the direction of both programs by the contracts Irving Shipbuilding has signed (that are public) with Lockheed Martin (As electronic systems and surveillance (radar) integrator), GE Canada (propulsion) and Odense Maritime Technology (Naval architecture). Based on these companies products and mature (yet evolving) designs, the RCN will succeed in renewal in the years ahead………though I’m sure we will pay a premium for domestically produced vessels. I think the selection of the various sub-contractors will be obvious choices for Irving, which will translate to a successful end result for the RCN, based on the combined naval experience (and success) of said firms in the naval warfare field.......calm seas ahead for both industry and the RCN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Some minor news on the AOPS/Harry DeWolf class, with the RCN today naming the 5th in the class...added to the previous 4 named in the class.....with the actual construction of Harry DeWolf to start in less than two months: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Not the least bit surprised: The flagship vessel in the Royal Canadian Navy's East Coast fleet has been called back to Halifax from deployment because of serious engine problems. HMCS Athabaskan — the navy's last destroyer — has been in service for 43 years and is starting to show its age. It needs major repairs to the propulsion system and there are other engine issues, the navy said Monday. As I said last year: somewhat surprised that they’re keeping the Athabaskan, but with that said, they could sustain and crew the remaining Tribal with the leftovers from her two sisters…..I still wouldn’t be surprised if she was decommissioned after she returns from her current deployment, or once the remaining frigates have completed the HCM/FELEX program…….. Realistically, it is no big loss, as the CBC's cited expert says here: "I think it is highly probable the Athabaskan will never sail again," said Hansen, a research fellow at Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies. "The problem is that you couldn't send Athabaskan anywhere and reliably expect her to get there or to get home again. She's going to break down. You've got to be able to move to fight," he said. "If the navy thinks … that sending Athabaskan sends a strong signal to the Russians — it's the wrong kind of signal. It's a signal that says Canada's navy has crapped out and they don't have to be worried." I agree, but this isn't due in part to the most recent engine (and structural) issues with the Athabaskan, but due to: Other than the Command and Control facilities aboard the 280s, the ships have been obsolete since the 90s, there is no real upside in keeping them, other than as place holders……Much like the Royal Navy giving up Carrier Strike for a few years until the QE’s enter service………… The RCN should let Athabaskan join her retired sisters.... unless she can be bandaged for several more years with salvaged parts from her recently decommissioned sisters, with the expectation that the ship would no longer deploy overseas, instead, being kept (as I said above) as a place holder, no longer for the crews whose ships (the frigates) are currently undergoing refit, but to start placing the future crews of the Harry DeWolf class.......the ship, assuming she can be kept operational with her sisters recycled parts, could further reduce its operational budget by no longer putting to sea with a full complement of crew, by "mothballing" (most of) the ship's weapons, sonars and long range/fire control radar, in addition, due to the Cyclone now entering service, no longer putting to sea with a helidet.........in effect, making the destroyer a default training & (large) coastal patrol vessel for the next several years.........a much more viable approach to ease the transition to the AOPS then using the Kingstons (outside of their annual Arctic exercises), if anything, due in large part to the actual size of the vessel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Some minor news on the AOPS/Harry DeWolf class, with the RCN today naming the 5th in the class...added to the previous 4 named in the class.....with the actual construction of Harry DeWolf to start in less than two months: These cost more than the US navy's new Freedom class coastal patrol ships, one of which was just launched the other day, and aside from strengthened bows, which earn them the name "slushbreakers" are far less capable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom-class_littoral_combat_ship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 These cost more than the US navy's new Freedom class coastal patrol ships, one of which was just launched the other day, and aside from strengthened bows, which earn them the name "slushbreakers" are far less capable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom-class_littoral_combat_ship Apples to Oranges..........first, the LCS has its development costs (from your cited figure) spread across dozens of vessels, well also not including the costs of each vessels's mission packages (the ships weapons, minus the 57mm gun, ASW, ASuW, MCM etc), packages that have yet to be fully developed and employed in the fleet........... Second, the mainly aluminum construction of the two LCS classes doesn't make the vessels more capable than the Harry DeWolf class, as such, said vessels would have zero ability to operate in even river ice, making the LCS less capable then not only the DeWolf class, but even our current Kingston class........ And finally, the LCS doesn't even have comparable range/endurance compared to the Kingston class, let alone the Harry DeWolf class, which would prove useless to the RCN in deployments in not only our Arctic, but even standard patrols along our West/East coasts.......... There is nothing wrong with the LCS, in their intended role, combat in the littorals of third world crap holes, but they would be wholly unsuitable in the role the Harry DeWolf class will fill.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Apples to Oranges..........first, the LCS has its development costs (from your cited figure) spread across dozens of vessels Do you really want to get into the astonishing design costs of the de wolf class? Second, the mainly aluminum construction of the two LCS classes doesn't make the vessels more capable than the Harry DeWolf class, as such, said vessels would have zero ability to operate in even river ice, making the LCS less capable then not only the DeWolf class, but even our current Kingston class........ You really think the hull is why our ships cost more? And finally, the LCS doesn't even have comparable range/endurance compared to the Kingston class, They're coastal patrol ships. They don't need range and endurance, and the LCS can literally run rings around the very, very slow slushbreakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Slush breakers, bomb trucks, it seems D2 just likes shiny new stuff no matter if it's faulty shiny new stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Do you really want to get into the astonishing design costs of the de wolf class? Sure. You really think the hull is why our ships cost more? No, and I never suggested that, they cost more because they are being produced in Canada. They're coastal patrol ships. They don't need range and endurance, and the LCS can literally run rings around the very, very slow slushbreakers. Do you have any idea of the distances involved in our coastlines? And no, the LCS can't run rings around them, as first, the LCS has not the range, nor seakeeping ability to operate in the same environment as the Harry DeWolf class will, but lets say they did, they can't operate in river ice, let alone first year arctic ice......... There is a reason the USN will no longer produce the current LCS class, choosing instead to salvage the program by building larger versions that would survive in a North Atlantic/Pacific storm, and can actually deploy where needed, due in part to increased range and endurance........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Slush breakers, bomb trucks, it seems D2 just likes shiny new stuff no matter if it's faulty shiny new stuff. It seems you like catch phrases more than facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 It seems you like catch phrases more than facts. No I actually prefer the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 No I actually prefer the facts. Then cite some. How about we start with the cost of rebuilding a shipping industry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Then cite some. How about we start with the cost of rebuilding a shipping industry? I prefer the ones that show the debacle the F 35 has become. More into planes than boats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 I prefer the ones that show the debacle the F 35 has become. More into planes than boats. Well, these boats are just the beginning of what should be a better future for Canada's navy and our shipbuilding industry both. It doesn't come cheap, but, it seems to be what Canadians want. I'd be fine to buy offshore, but, no one will go for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Well, these boats are just the beginning of what should be a better future for Canada's navy and our shipbuilding industry both. It doesn't come cheap, but, it seems to be what Canadians want. I'd be fine to buy offshore, but, no one will go for that. You could well be right. I haven't i all honesty followed up much on our navy needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Well, these boats are just the beginning of what should be a better future for Canada's navy and our shipbuilding industry both. It doesn't come cheap, but, it seems to be what Canadians want. I'd be fine to buy offshore, but, no one will go for that. Exactly. To add, the meme of "slushbreaker" is exactly that.............The Harry DeWolf class will be given a Polar ice rating of 5, outside of the Russians (of which nobody know how many of their nuclear icebreakers are actually operational or safe), of the other three Arctic nations (Canada, United States and Denmark) there are currently only 9 icebreakers in Government service with a Polar rating 5 or better, five Canadian Coast Guard ice breakers, three American icebreakers and one Danish icebreaker..........though their intended role is not to provide ice-breaking services to other vessels, the Harry DeWolf class will be just as able to operate in the Arctic as most other icebreakers (outside a handful of heavy ice breakers and the eventual CCGS John G. Diefenbaker) from late Spring to early Fall..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Yeah, that was a stupid term coined by the media...like so many other terms in relation to military procurement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Yeah, that was a stupid term coined by the media...like so many other terms in relation to military procurement. Do you think the term bomb truck was created by the media as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Do you think the term bomb truck was created by the media as well? Basically, yes, it was. It's not any more accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Basically, yes, it was. It's not any more accurate. Sure it is, and it has to have an F 22 hold it's hand if it wants to stay alive. And after all that crazy cost! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) Yeah, that was a stupid term coined by the media...like so many other terms in relation to military procurement. Exactly, due to the fact that a decades old Reform party policy paper envisioned building three heavy icebreakers (nearly a billion a pop in early 90s dollars), building on the previous Mulroney Government's Polar 8 program to build a nuclear powered icebreaker, in addition to 6-8 nuclear attack subs......as the Reform/CA policy paper evolved, and the realization that we couldn't afford three super icebreakers, the plan was whittled down to a more obtainable large Coast Guard icebreaker and (then) 6-8 Arctic patrol vessels.......... Ironically, if the Government had of invested more money in the larger ice breakers, the MSM and Opposition would have bitched about that..........inversely, as they bitch about SAR capabilities, they fail to mention the boon to coastal SAR the Harry DeWolf class will be.....in effect greatly expanding our current rotary SAR fleet range and on-station time. Edited July 21, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Sure it is, and it has to have an F 22 hold it's hand if it wants to stay alive. And after all that crazy cost! The F-18 would require an escort too, in even more situations, so don't feel too special. Back to the ships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.